the “risk” magically disappears like fairy dust when pockets are being filled..
4 Likes
That’s right. The risk calculation was entirely different when:
- There was an upside to the risk (employment)
- The social layer of the network was decentralized
Risk is an evolving calculation, not a fixed data point.
1 Like
@ChrawnnaCorp yes, “that’s right”..
So again - was this ever made clear, when you were applying for funding?
Did you expect that the contract will be prolonged into perpetuity?
Because in that case it seems we were really lucky that we found out now, not in several years….
1 Like
Liability concerns is a strong reason and ghosting it when that’s the main reason exposed, and not addressing this concern directly is a sign of disrespect, either in private or in public.
The questions being raised here are of primary interest for anybody working in the industry. A higher stake standpoint would be to address those concerns thoroughly, as all potential new users of the protocol would benefit for this disambiguation on legal terms of OpenGov’s referenda contracts liability or DAO’s liability concerns in general.
2 Likes
I would expect the org terminating the years long agreement would have arranged for the preservation of the assets. In light of this error, I have made it clear that they are welcome to reach out. So far nothing, but I am open to talk about it with them.
1 Like
Hello Jay,
just my carefree thought…
since The Kusamarian was funded by the community (Bounty and OpenGov) until end of 2025, I think we should move the content backups to the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF).
Just to be clear, W3F is not involved here, the PCF is the right place for community assets. I can help you as a facilitator to make the transfer, so we don’t waste time in useless discussions.
We could even do a WFC (Wish for Change) to give PCF the right instructions on how to keep the files safe for the long run.
In Canada (for example), it’s like when a client pays a professional to build something (the Treasury / the Community). Even without a big formal contract, the person who pays is the “Equitable Owner.” This means the “Work Product” the actual files and backups (the assets of The Kusamarian) should be handed over to the client for safekeeping. It’s just the standard way to make sure that what was paid for is actually delivered and stored in a safe place.
Let me know how I can help you to move the files to PCF.
15 Likes
Not to be rude, folks, but I can’t keep addressing the same points again and again. This is a very busy time. Please read the thread in full. Thank you for understanding.
1 Like
Please let us know when the files get moved to PCF
I always enjoyed the Kus and the content they produced over the years, even though we did not always share the same opinions. But the way they handled this “exit” by taking down the videos is really unprofessional.
The repeated assertion by Jay that W3F “shut down” the Kus is factually incorrect. Contracts had always been between with the DAO (via OpenGov), and limited for a period of time, subject to renewal. The Kus never had a broadcasting license in perpetuity, so it was not “shut down”, but simply not renewed due to changing priorities. The fact the Kus had conversations about a NEW contract with W3F in November (which failed to bear fruits), does not mean that W3F is the owner of the previous contracts - instead the DAO remains the correct counterparty.
The argument that videos were taken down for “liability reasons” is flimsy. Anything that is put online will likely be there in perpetuity and can come back to create a liability. Any content producer should know that. And if any piece of Kus content was ever found to be knowingly making false claims (which I of course don’t expect to be the case, but just as a thought experiment), it SHOULD indeed be out there as evidence, not deleted for “liability reasons”.
So to take all the videos downs now which were always under CC license and owned by the community, seems to be more of a blackmail attempt to extract one last payment from W3F for their release. I hope I am wrong in this interpretation, and that Jay does agree to transfer the content to the PCF (as others in this forum have suggested), which I agree would be the best entity to own and maintain them as a public archive.
18 Likes
Your reputation is in the gutter! It seems all those people saying things about you were true.
1 Like
Tbh I’m totally not surprised about Jay’s action - he was there for the money from the beginning, never for the community. It was obvious that the moment the funding would stop he would disappear
There are many reasons why openGov (and later W3F) should have stopped the contract with him, but his recent attempt (allegedly) to grift one last payment by holding the community videos as a “hostage” is the best evidence of how good this decision was
IMOH, the W3F shouldn’t even talk to him, but give him a deadline of 48hr bringing back the videos up again, otherwise they will send him a lawsuit of the entire amount of money he received over the years from both Polkadot & Kusama treasuries. Simple as that. This is the only language that should be spoken - we shouldn’t be blackmailed and there is nothing to negotiate about. Those videos belong to the Polkadot community
As a Polkadot holder I entitle the W3F the right to act on my behalf in that matters, and I believe many others will follow
8 Likes
I fully agree!
It is factually correct that W3F shut down the Kus. Here is how it happened:
1 Like
It’s unfortunate that things have reached this point. The forum has always been there to inform the community about what was happening and to openly discuss the situation in order to find the best possible solution.
I understand the risk you’re referring to, Jay, but like many YouTubers do, I believe it would have been necessary to include a clear disclaimer on your channel stating that the videos were for educational and informational purposes only, and that their production was funded by the Polkadot treasury.
It’s no secret what has led the Web3 Foundation to become directly involved in treasury spending. Now more than ever, the community needs to stay united and support the new direction, while waiting for a clear sense of where we’re heading.
I believe it’s only a matter of time before things become clearer—reorganizing certain functions and moving forward. The ecosystem needs to keep progressing, and it clearly depends on its community. A project without a community has no future.
I truly hope this situation reaches the best possible outcome for everyone involved.
5 Likes
They don’t own the Kus, nor do they own the platforms the Kus is published on - how could they shut it down? They just didn’t accept the offer you’ve made for producing the content, that’s all.
You had the chance to build towards an independent and sustainable program. Even after they didn’t support prolonging the contract - what steps did you make to keep the Kus (and mostly the Kus team) afloat?
You could lower the frequency, turn it into subscription based program, widen the scope of what’s discussed, turn it into an investigative and in-depth content that people would be happy to pay for. You had 3-year fully funded runway of building an audience and would be ready to get independent. Projects start and grow with much less! The fact that you decided to throw it out of the window for one last paycheck is not W3F’s fault.
I’m really sorry to see it coming to this, especially that it’s so unnecessary.
5 Likes
Well well well…
Jay,
what is becoming clear here is not some hidden wrongdoing by W3F, but your reaction to finally being treated like every other team in this ecosystem.
For years, The Kus operated in a privileged position, as one of the few media voices, with close access to core actors and a high degree of visibility. That created an expectation of continuity. What it did not create was an entitlement to it.
The moment that expectation was not met, the response was not to adapt, re-scope, or return with a revised proposal, as countless other teams have done. Instead, the response was escalation, blame-shifting, and the withdrawal of community-funded assets.
That is the part people are reacting to here.
The Kus was not “shut down.” It was not renewed. Those are materially different things in OpenGov, and you know this very well. Framing non-renewal as a shutdown is not a misunderstanding, it is a deliberate mischaracterisation.
It also raises an unavoidable question:
what would the response have been if DVs had voted against renewal instead? Would the same content have been taken down? Would the same accusations have been made? Or would that outcome have been accepted as “how the DAO works”?
That question goes to the heart of the issue.
Equally telling is the decision to take down CC, community-funded content immediately after funding discussions failed. Infrastructure teams were required to open-source their work, and none of them are now locking repositories because voting dynamics changed. The same standard applies here. Using public assets as leverage after the fact reveals far more about yourself and your intent than any timeline ever could.
Disagreeing with an outcome is legitimate.
Rewriting governance mechanics and punishing the community is not.
If anything, this episode has revealed who believed in decentralised governance, and who merely tolerated it while assuming they were untouchable. But most importantly,it show what kind of person you really are.
Good luck rebuilding trust after burning bridges and choosing escalation over adaptation.
4 Likes
GM. I had a call with Bill this morning where we worked out some differences of position and agreed it would be wise to begin smoothing this all out.
I have updated comments in this video and news on the public restoration of some content at the end.
Hopefully more good news to come.
11 Likes